O’Connor and Palmer are using different levels of analysis. Palmer’s is straightforwardly individualistic: each individual woman should be able to choose what she wants to do. O’Connor’s is strongly institutional: we are all operating within a system – the music industry, in this case, or even “society” – and that system is powerfully deterministic.

The truth is that both are right and, because of that, neither sees the whole picture. On the one hand, women are making individual choices. They are not complete dupes of the system. They are architects of their own lives. On the other hand, those individual choices are being made within a system. The system sets up the pros and cons, the rewards and punishments, the paths to success and the pitfalls that lead to failure. No amount of wishing it were different will make it so. No individual choices change that reality.

So, Cyrus may indeed be “in charge of her own show,” as Palmer puts it. She may have chosen to be a “raging, naked, twerking sexpot” all of her own volition. But why? Because that’s what the system rewards. That’s not freedom, that’s a strategy.

In sociological terms, we call this a patriarchal bargain. Both men and women make them and they come in many different forms. Generally, however, they involve a choice to manipulate the system to one’s best advantage without challenging the system itself. This may maximize the benefits that accrue to any individual woman, but it harms women as a whole.

_________________My oven is bigger on the inside, and it produces lots of wibbly wobbly, cake wakey... stuff. - The PoopieB.

So my book club read Suze Orman's "Women & Money" this month. Mentioning it on FB to a bunch of well-educated, feminist-identified women basically got a lot of derision towards financial TV personalities.. And I've never seen her TV shows or read any of her other books so I can't really speak to those, and the book is not totally without its flaws, but on the whole I'd say it's great. It does a really good job of not assuming readers are familiar with finances but not being condescending either. Yeah, the chapter on opening a bank account was mostly old news to me…and the book was written in 2006 and so the talk about savings account interest rates and whatnot seems way out of date. But on the whole I think it has some great advice for all kinds of women, and I wish I'd read it when I was 20 instead of now. (Back when I didn't know what a Roth IRA was, let alone why I should be contributing to one every year!)

I did learn a lot in the 'documents to prepare in case something happens to you' and insurance chapters. And a lot of the advice, while stuff I'd been more or less following all along (though informally and arrived at in bits and pieces), was my basic strategy and I think the best course for 95% of people. Anyway, I highly recommend it, I definitely think it looks at finances from a feminist perspective, and while it's not the kind of book I'd normally read at all I think I got quite a bit out of it.

I was so annoyed when I found out about Roth IRAs and realized I had the wrong kind of IRA all along. And by then I didn't qualify for a Roth anymore.

When I used to read Oprah magazine (What? It is actually kind of awesome most of the time!), I really liked Suze Orman's advice, she has a regular column there. I always thought her advice was very conservative, self-protective (your retirement > your kid's college tuition - they have time to pay off a loan, you don't have time to rebuild savings), but embracing of the way people actually live their lives and allowing people to spend their money in a joyful way.

This is a really, really micro-level thing, but I instantly thought of this thread.

I have been very sick for a very long time, starting when I first got my period at 10 years old. I went to see a new gynecologist today, and it was a man, so I was apprehensive because of how I have been treated by doctors, particularly men doctors, in the past - I think this is something a lot of women can relate to. When I said that I would like to have aggressive treatment and if he can't come up with anything that hasn't been tried, I would like to have a hysterectomy, I launched into my convincing spiel. He stopped me and said "You don't have to convince me. You can make your own decisions."

And also, one of the first things he said to me was "I will never tell you it's all in your head." I am really excited because this, to me, is a man who gets it. He understands how women are treated by our medical system, he understands that we are told our pain and suffering is all in our head, and he wants us to know he is on our side.

_________________"I will rip out your IV and other roman numerals." - pandacookie"The one thing I would not do for Aubrey Plaza is harm a baby, by the way." - strawberryrock

Oh god, I could have used that shirt last week. Some dude on the bus, who clearly thought he was doing me a favor, leaned in nice and close and said, "I hope you didn't leave something at home... because I see you without a smile, and I hope you don't have to go all day before you get it back..." *barf*

Oh god, I could have used that shirt last week. Some dude on the bus, who clearly thought he was doing me a favor, leaned in nice and close and said, "I hope you didn't leave something at home... because I see you without a smile, and I hope you don't have to go all day before you get it back..." *barf*

Oh god, I could have used that shirt last week. Some dude on the bus, who clearly thought he was doing me a favor, leaned in nice and close and said, "I hope you didn't leave something at home... because I see you without a smile, and I hope you don't have to go all day before you get it back..." *barf*

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar kinda just drips awesomeness wherever he goes. I knew he was smart, having seen him in interviews and on Jeopardy, but I didn't know he wrote thoughtfully about feminist issues as well.

Annak, great article. Like you, I knew Kareem was super smart but love that he wrote so eloquently about this subject. I love the line "Women will truly be considered strong when no one feels the need to comment on it."

This advert for a new kids' toy company, which makes engineering-themed toys and deliberately markets them at girls, from a perspective of deliberately trying to break down gender stereotypes where kids' toys are concerned:

A line from the song in the ad: "Girls to build a spaceship\ Girls to code the new app\ Girls to grow up knowing\ That they can engineer that."

_________________Some woopiter from Jupiter then says, and I quote: "That can't be true because I read otherwise online. Just look on Youtube." - torque

I read an article in the newspaper today about a group that held a talk/discussion on bicyclists dealing with street harassment. It had some good advice on what to say to people. I just wish i had heard of the event before it happened.

_________________lack toast intolerant: intolerant of not having toast

I thought this essay about short hair was so, so good! It makes me wish that I could cut my hair short without it being more maintenance and effort than my current can't-be-bothered shoulder length ponytail.

This is a basic principle: until it is proven otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt, it’s important to extend the presumption of innocence to Dylan Farrow, and presume that she is not guilty of the crime of lying about what Woody Allen did to her.

If you are saying things like “We can’t really know what happened” and extra-specially pleading on behalf of the extra-special Woody Allen, then you are saying that his innocence is more presumptive than hers. You are saying that he is on trial, not her: he deserves judicial safeguards in the court of public opinion, but she does not.

The damnably difficult thing about all of this, of course, is that you can’t presume that both are innocent at the same time. One of them must be saying something that is not true. But “he said, she said” doesn’t resolve to let’s start by assume she’s lying,” except in a rape culture, and if you are presuming his innocence by presuming her mendacity, you are rape cultured. It works both ways, or should: if one of them has to be lying for the other to be telling the truth, then presuming the innocence of one produces a presumption of the other’s guilt. And Woody Allen cannot be presumed to be innocent of molesting a child unless she is presumed to be lying to us. His presumption of innocence can only be built on the presumption that her words have no credibility, independent of other (real) evidence, which is to say, the presumption that her words are not evidence.

_________________My oven is bigger on the inside, and it produces lots of wibbly wobbly, cake wakey... stuff. - The PoopieB.

Honestly, that seems like a pretty serious distortion of presumption of innocence to me. It's also not true that anyone who extends to Woody Allen the presumption of innocence is necessarily accusing Dylan Farrow of lying.

Honestly, that seems like a pretty serious distortion of presumption of innocence to me. It's also not true that anyone who extends to Woody Allen the presumption of innocence is necessarily accusing Dylan Farrow of lying.

I have officially recused myself from this conversation (because migraine), but thank you for saying this. It's a false dichotomy that erroneously and simplistically paints everything in broad, black and white strokes, leaving no room for more nuanced, rational consideration. (Something no one on either the Allen or Farrow side of this issue seems interested in pursuing, which is why - in addition to the fact that it's actually none of my business - I've decided to stop weighing in on it.)